PSYOPS or Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives. Also called PSYOP. See also consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime psychological operations programs; perception management

It is my understanding that the US military is not supposed to conduct PSYOPs on domestic audiences.

When news networks seek to explain how things are going in Iraq, they often interview their own paid consultants — a cadre of retired military officers conferring expertise and credibility on their television employers. But it turns out the Pentagon has cultivated those network analysts as a hidden weapon in a sophisticated campaign for the minds of the American people. And that revelation has made media executives squirm. "There was a deliberate attempt to deceive the public," says Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News from 1996 to 2005. "Analysts whose real allegiance was to the Pentagon and who apparently were given at least special access for that allegiance were presented as analysts whose allegiance was to the networks and, therefore, the public."

"This is a very deliberate attempt on the part of the administration to shape public opinion," says former Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley. In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis. “It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

Two things...this story is almost a month old and other than NPR and the NYT, it has gotten little attention. I supposed the networks don't want to touch it because it further fractures their shattered reputations and claims to investigate and/or report the news. In reading the NYT article and the interview with former Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, I am greatly bothered that the Pentagon appears to have stepped over the line in an attempt to cheerlead for the administration. So I'm asking, does this look like a PSYOPs to you? Maybe more importantly, does it matter?

Just a brief opinion... It certainly matters, and it's shameful that the networks aren't reporting adequately on it - presumably because of their complicity.

Background information: Pentagon guidelines on PsyOps. Appendix C has references to the specific DOD and Presidential Executive Orders that relate to the prohibition of conducting psychological operations in the US. Here's another article detailing congressional restrictions that were violated (that're passed as part of the Pentagon budget).

Glenn Greenwald has had a series of excellent posts, including this one.

Thanks Brendan. I almost posted on this the night I heard the NPR story but it hasn't had much traction and I almost forgot about it. The memo you linked to in the Salon piece would appear to be the "smoking gun." Reading straight out of the memo, I don't know what else you can call this but a PSYOPs.

Quote from: Director of DoD Press Operations

1.) I recommend we develop a core group from within our media analyst list of those that we can count on to carry our water. They become part of a "hot list" of those that we immediately make calls to or put on an email distro list before we contact or respond to media on hot issues. We can also do more proactive engagement with this list and give them tips on what stories to focus on and give them heads up on issues as they are developing. By providing them with key and valuable information, they become the key go to guys for the networks and it begins to weed out the less reliably friendly analysts by the networks themselves .

3.) Media ops and outreach can work on a plan to maximize use of the analysts and figure out a system by which we keep our most reliably friendly analysts plugged in on everything from crisis response to future plans. This trusted core group will be more than willing to work closely with us because we are their bread and butter and the more they know, the more valuable they are to the networks.

Heyward reacts as if this sort of news fixing is new to the media/government complex. Its up to the news networks and men like Heyward to vet their hired analysts and ensure that the people they contract are acting in a professional manner. Heyward damn well knows this sort of shitte goes on all the time but only now has the cahones to speak out about it? after an effin' lifetime in the News business? Yeah right.. Heyward passed off on the RatherGate horseflop fiasco and is now a trusted NYT's media analyst/consultant? What hubris.

All these people have dogs in the fight - Robert S. Bevelacqua made a living sucking up to Fox news and Pentagon officials. How much dirty money did he make before stepping forward? Maybe he should donate that dirty money to charity and get out of the news media/journalism field. I'll bet 1000 to 1 that he is still in the same business doing the same work he always has. Heck.. I won't even bother to Google his name.. I bet he works for a shell company that contracts out for consulting work in one way or another.. in Washington DC of course.

Reporters receive leaked information via pentagon officials all the time - it's all part of the never ending inter-governmental political infighting .... and that access don't come free either. The public should demand the fifth estate be held to the same standard as any government office or official

Major Bob Bevelacqua is a former U.S. Army Green Beret who works with the WVC3 Group in Reston, Va., an elite security group that provides homeland security services, support, and technologies to government and commercial clients

Bevelacqua has a 17-year history of worldwide military experience, including combat in the Gulf War; riot control during the L.A. riots; a peacekeeping mission in Haiti, security assistance missions in West African countries; and numerous anti-drug missions on the U.S. border with Mexico.

NPR and the NYT are not the only ones who've covered this case, though you are right that the TV media hasn't been forthcoming about it. I don't think Psyops is really the term for it, though. The networks are at least partially at fault for the reasons Trappin notes and the analysts themselves are also to blame for letting themselves be manipulated. The problem is that "retired insider" analysts should have access via backdoor relationships and not be reliant upon official access.

Personally, I don't find this story at all surprising. It would be naive to think the Bush administration or the military would not try and spin things in their favor however they could. Call me when they cross a legal line with this.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.Syndey: That's alright. I have both.

NPR and the NYT are not the only ones who've covered this case, though you are right that the TV media hasn't been forthcoming about it. I don't think Psyops is really the term for it, though. The networks are at least partially at fault for the reasons Trappin notes and the analysts themselves are also to blame for letting themselves be manipulated. The problem is that "retired insider" analysts should have access via backdoor relationships and not be reliant upon official access.

I haven't watched network news in some time. On election night, I might dial it up but otherwise, they are fairly useless. What a fantastical drop from the life and times of Edward R. Murrow. Duplicity of the networks aside, the issue I'm interested in is whether the Pentagon crossed the line. I apologize for the overly long quote but this is complex and when I cut this down, it just doesn't work. In case you missed the link to this article in Brendan's post above, I'll link it a 2nd time here.

Quote from: PRwatch.org

The Pentagon military analyst program unveiled in last week's exposé ...was not just unethical but illegal. It violates specific restrictions that Congress has been placing in its annual appropriation bills every year since 1951. According to those restrictions, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) "covert propaganda." By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party. These concerns about "covert propaganda" were also the basis for the GAO's strong standard for determining when government-funded video news releases are illegal:

"The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the viewing audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual -- the essential fact of attribution is missing."

The key passage here is the phrase, "covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use of third parties." As the Times report documented in detail, the Pentagon's military analyst program did exactly that.

1. It was covert. As Barstow's piece states, the 75 retired military officers who were recruited by Donald Rumsfeld and given talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC were given extraordinary access to White House and Pentagon officials. However, "The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon." 2. It was an attempt to mold opinion. According to the Pentagon's own internal documents (which can be downloaded and viewed from the New York Times website), the military analysts were considered "message force multipliers" or "surrogates" who would deliver administration "themes and messages" to millions of Americans "in the form of their own opinions." According to one participating military analyst, it was "psyops on steroids." 3. It was done "through the undisclosed use of third parties." In their television appearances, the military analysts did not disclose their ties to the White House, let alone that they were its surrogates. The military analysts were used as puppets for the Pentagon.

Fire and prosecute the people involved in this PsyOp public relations campaign. Blacklist the media consultants that have profited from this criminal endevour. This is just more chaff on the political radar screen because we all know no one will be fired or tried in a court of law or serve time in prison. At least we know the Senate will root out the problem of HGH steroid use in the MLB/NFL right? Cynical but true.

I understand that you want to drive this post down the PsyOp road and I don't blame ya - I'm a long time government "disliker" - but choosing to ignore one of the two major components in this story is just plain myopic.

The people the NYT/NPR reference and use as evidence to further the PsyOp story are just another layer of consultants that are the end product of the Washington DC news media industry. These folks exist to create consulting firms, think tanks and non-profit.orgs.The same people who run these shell companies invite one another to sit on each others board of directors (nice way to pad media/resume credentials). It's a nearly impenetrable maze of interlocking corporate directorships all woven into the fabric of the media culture surrounding Washington, DC. San Jose, Ca. and the surrounding area is referred to as Silicon Valley for good reason.. what should we call a region that builds up thousands and thousands of consulting firms all designed for one purpose.

Why did the NYT's quote Major Bob Bevelacqua when they damn well know he's a self promoting money grubbing liar. Is his word now golden since he confessed to Pinchy? - three card monty. Google results show Bevelacqua is universally reviled by Free Republic and Wonkette. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste now works for various consulting firms and .orgs groups... in the Washington DC (government_media_plex?) area of course. This guy has worked for left/right and pro/anti Iraq war advocacy groups. Talk about workin' a room... Can't attack this guy since he's an Iraq vet.

The NYT's is complicit in the whole charade but it tries to manipulate the story so it appears that they are watching this unfold from an outsiders perspective. Tyrell would be proud - this sort of mind**** usually requires replicant implants.

Duplicity of the networks aside, the issue I'm interested in is whether the Pentagon crossed the line. I apologize for the overly long quote but this is complex and when I cut this down, it just doesn't work. In case you missed the link to this article in Brendan's post above, I'll link it a 2nd time here. (quote removed)

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as it seems. Again, any relatively intelligent person realizes that any "expert analyst" is someone who is relying on their own experiences as well as what sources they still have inside the subject they are talking about. As such, you have to realize they may have bad sources. Now, it's ridiculous that these "experts" would let them be played to this degree, but they are at least equally responsible. It takes two to tango, etc.

As for the legality, the point you've raised is interesting if somewhat suspect because of the sources viewpoint. It may be very legitimate, which raises the questions of why, in a political election year, this isn't being trumpeted.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.Syndey: That's alright. I have both.

I hate to say it, but if true -- this gets into things that mirror that of the old Soviet active measures model... And major news outlets not reporting on any of this implies state control of said outlets, even if it's not 'direct', per se. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch, but that's how the communist nations do it.

The fact it isn't more widely reported is pretty scary, however... Although not shocking. Network news is pretty damn crappy and irresponsible for the most part.

I find it odd that even though I can see where this could be a problem, it actually doesn't bother me. It's odd to me that it doesn't bother me because I am qutie often an alarmist in these types of circumstances.

I guess I just feel it's kind of a no-brainer that people who used to work in the gov/military and were very well experienced/high ranked probably still have allegiance/respect for their former positions anyway.

The issue isn't that there are retired military personnel who want to promote our military policies, it's that the administration took steps to find people who would "carry our water", and that that would weed out the "less reliably friendly" analysts, leaving the public with only a rosy pro-administration position. McBa1n's right - this is an old-school propaganda setup.

Here's a good commentary on it by Joe Galloway, a long-time war correspondant (who won a bronze star in Vietnam for rescuing soldiers under fire.)

I think everyone's suffering from a scandal fatigue at this point - there's just too many episodes of malfeasance to keep track of.

The overwhelming majority of media analysts/consultants are also working as defense contract rainmakers. These consultants are privy to information that most reporters can't get access to.... which leads to broadcast and print media editors and producers turning a blind eye on obvious conflicts of interest in exchange for insider information.

The Pentagon - aided and abetted by Bu$hCo - discovers this weakness in the system and decides to game the gamers. The media, the pentagon and the morally bereft consultants are all in on the same game - its the taxpayer who gets the Molly.

The problem isn't just "Bush" and his evil band of Barad-dûr Orc...and its not a conspiracy. Its a complicated cause and effect relationship which has taken decades/centuries(?) to produce.

New Sig:

Government and its institutions are inherently evil - or at least trend in the direction of badness and never ever trend towards goodness.